Tag Archives: Co2 Insanity

We have a market, it’s in the crapper. Seems the big Northeast CO2 auction prices have sold at the lowest allowable level of $1.86 per ton, which still seems like an awful high price for bullshit.

The allowances that power plants in the Northeast U.S. must buy to emit greenhouse gases fell to their lowest allowed level for the first time, selling for $1.86 a ton in the latest auction this week.

Allowance prices for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, hit their lowest level as the 10-state market set up to combat climate change remains over-supplied. Prices have slid as power demand slumps and the limits placed on CO2 emissions by the program remain considerably higher than what plants are actually pumping into the atmosphere.

I guess the power companies aren’t eager to flush their money down the toilet like the good little warmers would like them to do.

Well, I can’t wait for some bone-head bureaucrats to decide to lower the levels these plants can pump out and pray that the price rises in their carbon trading scheme. At which time I’m sure we’ll hear shouts of success from the warmer a-holes.

Remember hearing the harping about the salmon declining due to (what else?) global warming? Well, it appears perhaps we have another crock of global warming BS to flush down the toilet. We had this article in 2007 titled “Salmon and Global Warming” stating…..

From high mountain streams to broad rivers, to estuaries and the ocean, salmon are our “canary in the coalmine,” alerting us to the impact of climate change on the health of our entire ecosystem.

Then we have this one titled “Salmon Decline is a Wakeup Call” from Seattlepi.com, “conveniently” written by Doug Howell, regional executive director of National Wildlife Federation, Western Natural Resource Center, Seattle, stating things such as…..

First, we must curb greenhouse gas emissions; second, we need to invest in solutions such as reconnecting salmon to high headwater habitats and protecting health flows and cool waters in headwater areas to help those species cope with changes already under way.

The need for action is now. Fortunately, the Western Climate Initiative presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to lead the fight against climate change on both fronts.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will not be enough to save salmon in our region. We must also help them cope with a changing climate. The solutions have been identified, but we need elected leaders to provide the proper investments so they can be implemented.

We even had the below video from YouTube about the “endangered” salmon due to “warmer water.” Sounds like they may be pre-cooked when we catch one from now on doesn’t it?

Well I hate to burst your anthropogenic global warming bubble but it all seems to be more scare-a-rama, designed by the warmers to get you all hot and bothered about global warming.

Here’s one from the Western Institute for Study of the Environment titled “Record Salmon Return Explained” about why we have a sudden resurgence of salmon. You can see from the first quote they even set a new record one day on the number of salmon going up the fish ladders at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River in Oregon. This was posted July 26, 2010.

The Bonneville sockeye counts peaked from June 20-25 when more than 160,000 climbed over the fish ladders. The counts during that period ranged from 25,011 on June 20 to 30,690 on June 24. The latter count is the highest ever, breaking a record set the previous day (30,374).

The record run is “unexpected and hard to explain,” said the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Kathryn Kostow, who also chairs TAC. The committee is made up of federal, state and tribal officials. TAC typically would investigate such “odd events” at season’s end. …

So what’s the deal here? The salmon that were fast disappearing due to global warming are now suddenly returning in record numbers. Mysterious or is there an explanation?

Hard for some people to explain. But the abundantly obvious and evident reason for record salmon runs is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift that occurred in 2008, when cool waters replaced warmer waters in the eastern Pacific. Upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water feeds plankton and subsequently the entire food chain, including salmon.

Since mid-August, in a torrent expected to last through early October, sockeye have plunged and leapt up Alaskan streams, massed through the mouth of the mighty Fraser River in Vancouver, and filled Oregon and Washington waterways.

It’s even happening overseas…..

The Columbia River in Oregon has seen “the largest sockeye return since 1938,” he said, while Japan and Russia are enjoying “phenomenal returns.”

It’s also per this article from the Telegraph titled “Record Numbers of Salmon and Trout in British Rivers” happening in the United Kingdom….

More than 15,000 salmon and sea trout have already been recorded migrating this year up the River Tyne – a waterway in which no salmon and trout were seen 50 years ago – the highest number since records began.

Record numbers of sea trout have been recorded in the Thames, a river once declared biologically dead.

They attribute this to cleaning up the rivers, which isn’t a bad thing in my book. Certainly not global warming caused salmon decline though is it?

Yup, sure sounds like global warming is killing off all those salmon. Just another case of “alarmist” bullshit go me. It seems to be if we had that global warming going on we wouldn’t be seeing record salmon runs this year. More CO2 Insanity foisted upon the public by the scaremongers.

We lined it with cotton, so you won’t want to scratch.

Wooly bully, wooly bully

Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.

Charlie told Hainsworth, “That’s the thing to do.

Get you someone really to pull the wool with you.”

Wooly bully, wooly bully.

Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.

Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs might have written a song about wool coffins like the above. Seems Prince Charles likes the thought of itching for eternity.

The cotton-lined coffins, which are reinforced with recycled cardboard, edged in jute and can be embroidered with personalised woollen name plates, are all made from British wool sourced from sheep farmers across the country.

I say, can I try that one out? I need a nap.

Think they’ll use one of them when the Queen passes on? I seriously doubt it. Prince Charles seems to get weirder by the minute, too. He’s having a 12 day festival at Clarence House. Want to take a guess on what’s on display?

“He was really impressed with the coffins and asked for them specifically to be at the garden party,” she said. “He sees it is a way of being environmentally friendly all through your life. At the same time it supports British farmers which is a big area of interest to him.”

Well, I guess next time I have a garden party I’ll decorate with wool coffins. How sheik can you get?

Probably will be OK until some “warmer” starts complaining about sheep farts emitting methane gas into the atmosphere and causing global warming that is “unprecedented.”

Per info in the article this cut in the Amazon rainforest will be replaced 50 times by new growth

We have a new study that appears to be another instance of what I call “alarmist whackjobism.” It only bolsters my impression that the “warmers” are in desperation mode and are posting some rather amazing things. Things that have the appearance of being designed to bolster their failing arguments regarding anthropogenic global warming. Things designed perhaps to give the governments of the world motivation to pass carbon taxes, cap-and-trade laws and reign in all things that emit carbon. Things that could potentially create a new Unibomber or a new James J. Lee. This time it’s about the tropical rainforests (again).

Allheadlinenews.com has this article titled “New Farmlands Driving Out Forests Causes Climate Change Study Says.” It cites what is in my opinion an alarmist study (citation here) posted on the PNAS website (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) that “conveniently” points out that those nefarious tropical farmers are cutting down those trees (the warmers so love to hug) by the millions, and that the process is (of course), going to increase CO2 (which we’re still supposed to believe increases global warming in spite of much damning evidence to the contrary). You can take the following statement into consideration.

More than half a million square miles of new farmland created in tropical countries, such as Brazil and Indonesia, between 1980 to 2000 was due to the felling of forests which in turn, accelerated the release of carbon into the atmosphere resulting in global warming, according to a new study led by Stanford postdoctoral researcher, Holly Gibbs, of the Department of Environmental Earth System Science.

Go ahead, read it again, look at the dates: “between 1980 to 2000.” That seems to be a “conveniently” dated report. Possibly “conveniently” dated because there’s nothing going on after 2000 to get excited about. You call it, I’m just pointing it out for you to think about.

The abstract at PNAS makes me wonder if there wasn’t some “convenient” timing there? If you read the fine print you can see this study was submitted on September 22, 2009 and not approved until July 30, 2010. That’s a little over 10 months and a lot of negative things about global warming have happened since 9/22/09 such as Climategate, the IPCC getting sat on by the IAC, the Hockeystick graph, myriad problems with the MET, NOAA, NASA, GISS, Satellitegate and many other issues that appear to have increased the warmer desperation level faster than NOAA or GISS can alter temperature data.

I almost wonder if this wasn’t pulled out of the round file due to the increasing need to counter-attack the skeptics with anything they can muster. Like the saying goes “desperate times call for desperate measures,” which could be the new “warmer” mantra.

Why do I take umbrage at this? First, let us look at the definition of umbrage, which is why I chose that word as it seems to have a good take on the “warmer” claims made in this study about rainforests. From here at Dictionary.com we get the following:

“um·brage

1. offense; annoyance; displeasure: to feel umbrage at a socialsnub; to give

umbrage to someone; to take umbrage at someone’s rudeness.

2. the slightest indication or vaguest feeling of suspicion, doubt,hostility, or

the like.

3. leaves that afford shade, as the foliage of tree

4. shade or shadows, as cast by trees.

5. a shadowy appearance or semblance of something.”

Sorry if you don’t get it but since we’re talking about rainforests I thought the definitions were funny, and yes, words such as offense; annoyance; and displeasure could describe my feelings about what I question is going on with this report (to say the least).

There is a reason I take umbrage, which takes us back to the date of the report. My suspicion is that they don’t have much to stir people up with after 2000, so they cut things “conveniently” off at 2000. It appears that after 2000 we have things popping up that present problems with the claims in this report such as:

From Mongabay we get the following about the Amazon Jungle.

Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell below 10,000 square kilometers for the first time since record-keeping began, reported Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc on Sunday.

You can read the whole article here. Please note that it’s dated June 22, 2009, about 8.5 years after the 2000 cutoff date cited in the study. Also please note the remark at the end about how the Brazilian government committing to significant reductions in deforestation of the Amazon Jungle, which is an indication the deforestation will slow down and possibly stop in much of the Amazon. Something not mentioned this report even though recently published.

Want more to ponder? You can read this from a New York Times article here circa June 29, 2009, again long after this studies cutoff date of 2000.

By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play.

Well now, isn’t that amazingly contrary to the report that prompted this post? Rainforest’s growing? Heaven forbid! This could be another reason we get the cutoff date of 2000. Again from the same NYT article.

The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority. But the notion has gained currency in mainstream organizations like the Smithsonian Institution and the United Nations, which in 2005 concluded that new forests were “increasing dramatically” and “undervalued” for their environmental benefits. The United Nations is undertaking the first global catalog of the new forests, which vary greatly in their stage of growth.

Even the United Nations (home of the IPPC and who in general seem to love all things warming) bought into the fact that the rainforest are growing back in 2005, about 5 years after the 2000 cutoff date in the Stanford report. Is environmental outrage perhaps some or all of the driving force behind this report? Is this another good reason for the 2000 cutoff date?

In a report published in the 6 March 2009 issue of Science, Oliver L. Phillips of the UK’s University of Leeds and his 65 co-authors write that “old growth forests in Amazonia … through photosynthesis and respiration … process 18 petagrams [18 x 1015 grams] of carbon annually,” which they say is “more than twice the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions.” They also state that over the past quarter-century of intensive region-wide measurements, the productivity of the Amazon rainforest — even in its extreme old age — has been found to be “increasing with time,” in support of which statement they cite the comprehensive observational studies of Phillips et al. (1998), Nemani et al. (2003), Baker et al. (2004), Lewis et al. (2004) and Ichii et al. (2005).

So per the above the Amazon alone is processing more CO2 than we’re pumping out globally (2 x) and the ability to process CO2 is increasing, not decreasing as the report would have you believe. This causes me to again wonder why the evident alarmism, what the motivation for this report was and why the seemingly “convenient” cutoff date of 2000? Note that the item from CO2 Science doesn’t even include the respiration of all the other forests and plants of all types worldwide, just the Amazon.

Think about this and tell me where’s the problem and why the alarmism? Is this more CO2 Insanity?

The Church of Global Warming (a.k.a. the Church of CO2 Emissions), which has converted many a true believer over the past few decades, is facing a Reformation of sorts. Its pews are beginning to empty as snow-bound and shivering skeptics increasingly question its once-unchallenged doctrines.

Still, many millions of worshipers remain faithful to the religion’s man-is-warming-the-earth theology – a belief system based on demonstrably fraudulent science and false prophecy.

False prophets? Religion? Pray-tell! (pun intended)

In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is now cooling – not warming – why do so many cling to their Greenhouse God while denouncing CO2 as the planetary Satan? Why do they continue to recite chapter and verse from necromancer Al Gore’s Bible of Inconvenient Truth?

Read all about it at the source below. (….and please leave some money so I can make a donation to the Church of Global Warming – thanks!)

It seems someone must have declared an ecoterror jihad. First we have warmers gluing themselves to banks, then we get Greenpeace trying a hostile takeover of an oil drilling rig off the coast of Greenland and now we have a greentard gone mad taking over the Discovery Channel building. If there a full green cheese moon this month or something? Did someone declare an Ecoterror Jihad? Should Homeland Security be checking into the “Eco Taliban?”

It appears to me that what we have going on here could be the forefront of a new wave of warmer desperation and despair because people are not falling for the anthropogenic global warming BS anymore. Are they getting so desperate that violence may become their main path to getting the world to genuflect to the Church of Global Warming? Think about it.

We have Al Gore and others who have admitted defeat on getting cap & trade passed this year in Congress. Obama appears to have stuck his head in the sand on this issue (not to mention others). The Chicago Climate Exchange (trading carbon credits) is imploding as we watch (along with Al Gore’s wallet). The UN has realized that the carbon trading scheme in Europe is about as corrupt as it gets with a $2.7 billion scam. The IPCC has been bitch-slapped by the IAC due to a lot of bad science, fraud, mismanagement and conflicts of interest surrounding their last report in 2007. The UN (justifiably) can’t get anyone to agree on much of anything about global warming or what to do or not to do about it, and the warmers appear to be losing it, perhaps big time.

Today we hit a new low in ecoterror with James J. Lee arming himself and taking over the Discovery Channel building in Silver Spring, Maryland in a desperate effort to have the Discovery Channel do his bidding. You can read his manifesto below, taken from his website Save The Planet Protest. I took a screenshot of this as I don’t expect that link will be working much longer.

Manifesto From James Lee's Website

This is a rather amazing set of demands. We get demands and rantings such as:

“The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas.”

“Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.”

“All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas.”

“All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. (Talk about hypocritical thinking).”

“Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is.”

“Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that.”

“Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!”

“That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”

“Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.”

Obviously what we have here is a sick mind, perhaps the result of being bombarded with Green bullshit from various sources until he just couldn’t deal with it anymore and went off the deep end. Per CNN this could be a part of where the problem started…..

n a 2006 MySpace posting, Lee wrote: “I finished reading the Daniel Quinn books last month. It started off just as a recommendation from a girl who worked at a coffeehouse.

So who’s Daniel Quinn? Well you can go here and see the website Ishmael.org , see some of what he’s about, and judge for yourself. Obviously he’s an alarmist who likes stirring people like Lee up about things such as over-population, pollution and global warming. To quote from his biography on Wikipedia…..

While response to Ishmael was mostly very positive, Quinn inspired a great deal of controversy with his claim (most explicitly discussed in the appendix section of The Story of B) that since population growth is a function of food supply, sustained food aid to impoverished nations merely puts off and dramatically worsens a massive population-environment crisis. This crisis is born of a disconnect between local humans and the local habitat with its food. Quinn points out that ending this disconnect is a proven way to avoid famines.

I think that explains a lot about where Mr. Lee got some of the ideas put forth in his demands to Discovery Channel regarding overpopulation problems and issues he seems to have with human reproduction. Perhaps he wanted to end a few people’s “disconnect.”

Is this the prototype ecoterrorist? Is this what organizations such as Greenpeace want running about? Ecoterrorst who will shoot or blow up people, companies and organizations who don’t follow their green dogma? Is this what people like Al Gore are creating?

The reason I mention the above is that according to this article from AP…..

At Lee’s trial, The Gazette of Montgomery County reported, Lee said he began working to save the planet after being laid off from his job in San Diego.

He said he was inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn, and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Evidently watching some programs on the Discovery channel also helped create this mindset and his attack on the Discovery Channel itself…..

“The Discovery Channel produces many so-called ‘Environmental Programs’ supposedly there to save the planet,” Lee said in an ad he took out in a Washington newspaper to promote the protest. “But the truth is things are getting WORSE! Their programs are causing more harm than good.”

I’d bet programs like “Whale Wars” didn’t help his mindset either. It wouldn’t be a stretch to surmise this show may have given him some ideas about going on the attack against society. Kind of like monkey see, monkey do. Whaling ship or TV station, what’s the difference to someone like James Lee?

Of course, no one will be prosecuted for putting such thoughts into this man’s mind. Greenpeace will continue harassing whaling ships, Al Gore will perhaps continue harassing masseuses, etc. After all, it’s not their fault the got him so stirred up that he took over the Discovery Channel building and was killed by the police, now is it?

I guess you could term this “Anthropogenic CO2 Insanity.” A term I hope we don’t start using with more frequency. I have to wonder if the “Eco Taliban” aren’t calling for “Eco Jihad” against innocent people. Time will tell.

I just came across this piece from Bloomberg Businessweek titled “New Zealand Farmers Harvest Carbon Credits” that seems to have some nefarious implications about what carbon credits could do to the world’s food supplies.

…a carbon emission trading system that kicked off in July is upending the economics of sheep farming, a once crucial sector of the economy. Sheep farmers are walking away from the business of selling wool and lamb chops and are converting their grazing lands into tree farms that could prove valuable when the country’s agricultural sector is forced to pay for greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2015.

While that may seem “valuable” when it comes to paying for greenhouse gas emissions, it certainly doesn’t seem very valuable as far as the world’s food supply is concerned. According to them it’s not even going to make any difference in their emissions.

Prime Minister John Key’s government in Wellington has said a carbon trading regime probably won’t have a big impact on the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, yet will boost the country’s green credentials and clout in global climate talks.

Seems like some fat egos in New Zealand are more concerned about being stylish on the world scene than being realistic or worrying about what this may do to the food supply in the future. I mean why in the hell would you spend a wad of money for something that isn’t going to do anything? This reminds me of some the scams you see on TV for various “medicines” that aren’t government tested or approved yet come with claims of providing miracles. One would think if there was something out there that would make your wanker grow that some huge drug company like Bayer or Pfizer would have already discovered it and had a patent on it and be raking in billions.

So why would the sheep farmers get all excited about this scheme? Well it seems there are problems in Sheepland such as:

“Although New Zealand was the world’s largest sheep meat exporter last year, the number of sheep have fallen from a 1982 peak of 70 million to about 40 million”

“The government’s carbon program is also a welcome opportunity for some sheep farmers, struggling against slumping wool prices, drought, and competition for land from the dairy and lumber industries”

“Farmers who convert their land from sheep grazing to planting trees could add $172 per acre in value each year to their land holdings”

Think about it. You have less sheep to deal with, which means less feed to buy and less help to pay for and you plant trees that sit there and do nothing and require little if any care, plus you get paid for it. Sounds like a dream come true – get paid for doing basically nothing. But that old adage, ” if it sounds too good to be true it usually is.”

While this may sound good to your friendly neighborhood sheep farmer, it does have other implications on the economy such as “losing jobs once held by shearers, mechanics, and veterinarians.” You can extrapolate that to the shearers, mechanics and veterinarians aren’t going to be spending any money so we will soon have problems with other businesses such as restaurants and stores losing business or even going out of business.

It also isn’t the panacea it’s promised to be, as there are other issues surrounding this:

“farmers are being sold on carbon trading without understanding that they could lose trees to fire or disease”

“the government might cancel the program at any time”

So what we have here is another global warming failure in progress. By the New Zealand’s government’s own admission it’s not going to accomplish much in the way of emissions reductions and it has a lot of potential problems.

Let’s get to the food issue. I see global warming not as a reality but as something that is trendy with the green crowd, a potential maker of billions for people in on the carbon trading schemes, and a killer of jobs and economies due to the increased costs of doing business due to carbon taxes. If that’s not enough we now have the potential to create food shortages.

We now have a foot in the door by paying people not to raise sheep. What next? We pay people to not raise cattle and chickens? Crops such as corn and soybeans are currently being partially diverted from feeding people to making ethanol for cars. How much more will the price of those crops rise if there’s additional shortages created by farmers electing to plant trees instead of grow corn? How much less food will be around because of this?

Think I’m kidding? Just look at the bump in wheat prices due to Russia putting a ban on exporting it due to the recent fires? Imagine if 1/3 of the world’s wheat farmers decided to plant trees and not bother growing wheat anymore? Will there be enough? Will the poor be able to afford it? Will the middle class see their food bills rising to the point that it’s a burden? Here’s a clip from the Washington Post.

Russia announced Thursday that it will ban all grain exports for the rest of the year, sending wheat prices soaring to a two-year high and raising the possibility of inflated food prices that could throw an already fitful global economy recovery off track.

Wheat prices in 2010

You can see from the above chart what the prices have been doing. Below is one effect of price increase and shortages of wheat.

In Egypt — one of the biggest importers of wheat and a nation that experienced deadly violence in bread lines two years ago — the government assured the public that it has a four-month supply of wheat and urged Russia to honor contracts it signed before the ban. In Europe, the United Kingdom’s Premier Foods and Switzerland’s two largest food retailers warned consumers that they may increase prices of products that contain wheat, from crackers to beer.

That Russian wheat is only about 11% of the total world market and yet you can see the actual and easily imagine the potential effects a shortage could have in countries that are dependent upon wheat imports.

So what’s worse? Dying from global warming or food shortages? Sometimes I wonder if there isn’t some other undercurrent going on here that all this is more about population reduction than it is about global warming. Adding the potential of food shortages due to carbon trading schemes just seems to reinforce that idea.